]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/face-to-face-muslim-integration/feed/039079India’s Justice System Condemned After Yet Another Child Rapehttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/indias-justice-system-condemned-after-yet-another-child-rape/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/indias-justice-system-condemned-after-yet-another-child-rape/#respondSat, 14 Apr 2018 11:41:45 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=31729Asifa, an eight-year-old child filled with innocence and the joy of life, was drugged, gang-raped and brutally murdered in a Hindu Temple in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Many had not heard of Asifa Bano until this week, or the depraved ordeal she was subjected to in the last moments of her short life by a gang of ...

]]>Asifa, an eight-year-old child filled with innocence and the joy of life, was drugged, gang-raped and brutally murdered in a Hindu Temple in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Many had not heard of Asifa Bano until this week, or the depraved ordeal she was subjected to in the last moments of her short life by a gang of Hindu men.[1]

Asifa’s family belong to nomadic Muslim shepherds (called Gujjars) who crisscross the Himalayas with their cattle and on the 10th January whilst tending horses in a meadow, Asifa went missing in the forest. The family and local villagers initiated an immediate search and rescue operation penetrating deep into the forest and throughout the night but Asifa was not found.[2]

Her family went to the local police station, but, according to her father, Muhammad Yusuf Pujwala, rather than assist the tormented parents, one police officer suggested the eight-year-old may have “eloped”. [1]

Distraught fellow Gujjars, having been offered no assistance from the local police, staged protests and blocked a highway. The Police relented but assigned just two officers to the search. It was latterly revealed that one of the two officers, (Deepak Khajuria) was himself eventually arrested in connection to the gruesome crime. The Police’s conduct in this matter has come under heavy criticism as they delayed alerting the press to Asifa’s disappearance for several days.[2]

Five days later, on the morning of January 17, Asifa’s small, lifeless body was found, laying in the forest bushes, only a few hundred metres away from her family. Asifa’s mother, Naseema said:

“She had been tortured. Her legs were broken. Her nails had turned black and there were blue and red marks on her arm and fingers.” [1]

An investigation into Asifa’s murder has found that she had been imprisoned in a local Hindu Temple for several days, administered sedatives to keep her unconscious and then “raped for days, tortured and then finally murdered” by strangulation and being struck on the head twice with a stone. According to the investigation, Asifa would have been murdered earlier had one man not insisted on waiting so he could rape her one final time.[2]

A 60-year-old retired government officer and custodian of the Hindu Temple in question, Sanji Ram is alleged to have planned the gruesome crime with the assistance of four Hindu police officers; Surender Verma, Anand Dutta, Tilak Raj and Khajuria.[3] Investigators have even alleged these police officers washed Asifa’s bloodied and muddied clothes before sending them for forensic examination,[1] in an obvious attempt to remove any forensic evidence.

Whilst this depraved crime did not initially receive much media attention in Hindu majority Jammu, in the state assembly an influential Gujjar leader Mian Altaf demanded an inquiry. However, Rajiv Jasrotia, a lawmaker in India’s ruling right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP party, said the incident was only a “family matter”.[1]

In the months since, rather than nationwide revulsion at this sadistic child gang-rape and murder, Hindu nationalists have turned it into a rallying cry and have been demonstrating against the arrest of the eight Hindu men accused of the heinous crime. During such rallies slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Bharat Mata Ki Ja” have been shouted.[3] Two members of Modi’s BJP party also attended a rally in support of the accused whilst a mob of Hindu lawyers physically blocked police from entering the court to file charges against the accused Hindu men.[4]

Asifa’s father, Mr Pujwala, has tried to make sense of this senseless crime, stating he believed the Hindu criminals’ objective was to drive the Muslim Bakarwal tribe people away.[2] Kashmir has been a restive state since 1947 when India was partitioned and there has been an armed revolt against Indian rule since 1989[5]. The original borders, which is the cause of so much strife, was drawn up by Viscount Radcliffe with the passing of the Indian Independence Act.[6] In a visit to Pakistan in 2011, then Prime Minister David Cameron, when invited to solve the problem of Kashmir, declined and apologised for causing the religious tensions in the first instance.[7]

Rather than sit down and only lament over this unspeakable crime, supporters of Asifa began a campaign called #JusticeForAsifa. Although this depraved crime occurred in January, the pressure exerted by this campaign is bearing fruit with Bollywood celebrities such as Abishek Bachan and Javed Akthar[8] and prominent Indians speaking out including tennis star Sania Mirza.[9] Just yesterday, notable politician and Indian royalty Rahul Gandi tweeted:

“India simply cannot continue to treat its women the way it does. What happened to Asifa at Kathua is a crime against humanity. It cannot go unpunished”. [10]

India is known to have a notorious problem with rape and in Modi’s India it seems Muslim girls and women are in even greater danger with little hope of justice. Campaigns such as #JusticeForAsifa are critical to ensure such crimes are not repeated. With the world’s attention on India, the courts today took action in another child rape case, ordering the arrest of BJP politician Kuldeep Singh Sengar and his brother for similarly heinous crimes.[11]

Upon reading of such disturbing news, we and indeed the parents of Asifa, can find solace from the following hadīth.

Abu Hassan recalled: ‘I said to Abu Hurayrah: Two of my sons have died. Can you narrate to me any hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) which will console us for our loss? Abu Hurayrah said: “Yes”: ‘Their little ones are the little ones (da’aamees) of Paradise. When one of them meets his father, or his parents, he takes hold of his garment, or his hand, as I am taking told of the hem of your garment, and he does not let go until Allah admits him and his father to Paradise. [12]

We ask Allāh (subhānahu wa ta’ālā) to have mercy on Asifa and her family, to grant them patience and admit them to the highest stations of paradise. We ask Allāh (subhānahu wa ta’ālā) to shower mercy on the families of our murdered children whether that is from the chemical attacks or barrel bombs in Syria, or the bombarded, starved children of Yemen, and all of those suffering elsewhere. Allāh, you are our only helper.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/indias-justice-system-condemned-after-yet-another-child-rape/feed/031729Indian Revolt 1857: the role of the Ulama 160 years onhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/history/indian-revolt-1857-the-role-of-the-ulama-160-years-on/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/history/indian-revolt-1857-the-role-of-the-ulama-160-years-on/#commentsWed, 31 May 2017 17:09:28 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=26702Z A Rahman ponders over the difference: the revolt led by the Ulama of India in May 1857 & the Ulama of CVE in 2017...

160 years ago, in this very month of May, a significant world event took place. The Indian Revolt of 1857-58 was a major uprising in India against the rule of the occupying British East India Company which functioned as a sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown.

The revolt is known by many names, including the Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, the Revolt of 1857 and the Indian Insurrection.

Resistance against British occupation began much earlier with the likes of Tipu Sultan and his father in Mysore between 1767-1799. In 1803, the son of Shah Waliullah, Abdul Aziz Shah, declared the first fatwa (edict) calling for armed Jihād against the occupying forces which was then taken on by his friend and student, Sayyid Ahmed Brelwi (1786-1831). Nevertheless, the uprising in 1857 is regarded as India’s First War of Independence because of its having spread nationally and not restricted to just certain provinces as previous revolts had been.

Background

While the British East India Company had established a presence in India for “trading purposes” as far back as 1612, its victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757 marked the beginning of its firm foothold in India.

The revolt of 1857 came about as a result of a number of factors relating to the mistreatment and oppression inflicted upon both Muslims and Hindus in India by the British. The Sepoys, who were local Muslim and Hindu soldiers, were recruited into the East India Company’s army. In line with the colonialist policy, Christian missionaries were exported to states occupied by the British to promote the “British Values” of its time, vis-à-vis ‘Christianity’, as was also the case in Africa as part of its global crusade to “Christianise” the world. A famous saying, often attributed to the African social activist and Kenya’s first Prime Minister (1963-1964) Jomo Kenyatta, comes to mind in highlighting this issue:

“When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had their land and the Missionaries had the bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had our land and we had the Bible.”[2]

Although the missionaries were active in India right from the outset, by 1857 many Sepoy soldiers were convinced that the East India Company was masterminding mass conversions of Muslims and Hindus to Christianity.[3] The level of British oppression crossed the limit of tolerance when new ammunition cartridges for rifles were issued. The new cartridges were made out of paper and pre-greased.[4] To access the powder from the cartridges, the Sepoys were instructed to bite it open. However, there was a sinister purpose to this, it was widely reported that the grease used was sourced from beef and pork fat, thereby intentionally setting out to insult and offend both Hindus and Muslims respectively.

It was clear to the imperialists that some sort of rebellion over the cartridges was imminent. During April 1857, there was unrest and fires at Agra, Allahabad and Ambala. The spark, however, that would light the flames of resistance came from Meerut when some Sepoys refused the cartridges and were publicly humiliated and imprisoned with heavy sentences. On 10 May 1857, a group of Sepoys attacked and freed their brethren from prison. The Sepoys and those civilians who joined their cause escaped and made their way to the ancient capital and the then present seat of the Mughal Emperor, Baharuddin Shah, who was in Delhi. The growing resistance force petitioned Baharuddin to lead them against the imperialists, which he eventually and reluctantly accepted.[5] Despite having significant loss of power from preceding centuries, the Mughal name still carried great prestige in the hearts of the Muslims. The British underestimated this and were oblivious to just how many were willing to rally under the Mughal banner.

However, what aided the cause significantly and tipped the balance were the noble Ulama of India. For the first time since the edict issued by Abdul Aziz Shah another edict for armed Jihād was issued. This carried the signature of thirty-four Ulama of the highest eminence. Prominent among them were great luminaries such as Maulana Qasim Nanotawi, who later became one of the founders of the prestigious Dār al-ʿUlūm Deoband, Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Hafiz Zamin Shaheed who fought the imperial army under the leadership of Haji lmdadullah at Shamli Field.[6] The people were moved when they saw that their Ulama were at the forefront in showing resistance to the occupying forces. The mood of retaliation against the supercilious British dominance had extended right across India. The Ulama had inspired the civilian population to rise up.

For the British colonialists, the revolt posed a considerable threat to their power, and was contained only with the defeat suffered by the mujāhidīn in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. Although the resistance, which was being fought and spiritually led by the Ulama, made many gains early on, in the end the barbarity of the British in suppressing the uprising was unprecedented and their superior weaponry and brutality in defending their hegemony proved too much for the brave Muslims. Perhaps most damning of all was the role played by those Muslims who sided with the British imperialists in bringing the revolt to an end. Lord Canning (then Governor General) commented on one particular Indian Prince, saying: “If (he) joins the rebels, I will pack off tomorrow”. Later he was to comment:

“The Princes acted as the breakwaters to the storm which otherwise would have swept us in one great wave.”[7]

The Ulama became the main target of the British oppression and persecution. The word ‘Maulvi’ became synonymous with ‘rebel’ in British eyes. At least 100,000 were killed of which a great proportion were the Ulama.[8] Right across India, in the Punjab, Ambala, Multan, Peshawar, Agra, Jhelum, Aurangabad and many other places, “mutineers” were tied to the barrels of cannons and blown away whilst others were hanged.

The lengthy Mughal dynasty now came to an end. Emperor Baharuddin Shah was exiled to Burma in 1858 while his three sons were executed. Baharuddin died four years later in Rangoon, aged 87.

The rebellion proved to be an important watershed in Indian and British Empire history and led to the dissolution of the East India Company. The Government of India Act 1858 meant that India was now to be administered directly by the British government in the new

Points to Note

The Ulama that were involved in the 1857 revolt knew very well the consequences of their actions, however they were driven by the Islamic teachings in enjoining what is good by standing up for justice, and repelling what is evil by fighting oppression and tyranny. Their objective was to replace the corrupt, imperialist administration by establishing a government based on principles of equality and justice.

The ḥadīth “the scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets” is often regarded as being about knowledge only, but what is knowledge if it does not transform a person’s outward action? Knowledge and action go hand in hand and are often mentioned together in various verses in the Qur’ān.

An interesting point that followed the revolts were the cases brought against many Ulama. The sedition cases were generally known as ‘the Wahabi Cases’ or the ‘Ambala Conspiracy Case’. What is of note is that while many Muslims today divide themselves based on their Aqīdah (Creed), it makes no difference to our detractors. For the British imperialists it did not matter what the Aqīdah of those Ulama in India actually was; for them, they were all the same—an obstacle to their continued oppressive hegemony. The pejorative “Wahabi” used against them entered into the British imagination and is recycled by some even until today.

Unfortunately, some “Ulama” today are involved in programmes and actions that make them stand on the wrong side of justice and history. Many are involved in the misnamed global Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programmes and, in doing so, provide tacit approval for the crimes of oppressive regimes across the world suppressing popular grassroots movements for self-determination. Some have gone to considerable lengths to demonise non-violent activists and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, supporting the likes of Sisi’s “deformation of Islām” project.[9] There have even been recent reports of concern from Egypt of Muslim scholars being arrested for holding harmless, mainstream beliefs, such as that Christians are disbelievers in Islām.[10] In India some sectarian “Ulama” have even supported India’s extreme Hindu nationalist government’s decision to ludicrously place Peace TV founder Dr Zakir Naik on an Interpol list![11]

In the UK we have some self-styled “Ulama” and “Imams” being used as proponents of our equivalent of CVE, PREVENT, albeit shrinking in number as the toxicity of the policy is better and better known. Though no one will argue that there is anything wrong in wanting to prevent actual violence, CVE programmes such as PREVENT fit into an ideological construct which sees too much ‘Muslim-ness’ as a threat to the public or to “Western” liberal values and, therefore, equates religious conservatism with violent extremism. As such, normative Islamic beliefs and concepts seen through the lens of national security and thus criminalised in a pre-crime space, with the aim of creating a state-approved, diluted and obedient version of Islām that coincidentally shields oppressive regimes from criticism and condemnation.

Perhaps some Ulama involved in these programmes believe that they are preserving their Islamic organisations and institutions. To these scholars, I say that history is indeed a wonderful teacher if only people took note. When we look at the example of Muslim Spain, we see that the Nasrids in Granada also believed in saving themselves at the expense of helping their brethren. For nearly 200 years, Granada was the last Muslim “stronghold” ruled by the Nasrids as a vassal state of Christian kingdoms until 1492 when Granada was taken. Muslims paid a yearly tribute to the Christians in order to remain in Granada. The first of the Nasrid rulers Muhammad I accepted King Fernando III of Castile as his sovereign and in 1248 helped him, as his vassal, against his fellow Muslims to conquer Seville as well as other Muslim cities.[12] Despite the odd conflict, successive Nasirid rulers by and large collaborated with the Christians to suppress Muslim “rebels” as part of the “Countering Violent Extremism” policy of that time. While their Christian overlords allowed them to continue to survive and build in the end the result of joining hands with them against their own brethren was total devastation. When the Nasrids were of no further use to the Christian kings they were removed and the ensuing inquisition, torture, mass conversions and expulsions which followed completely eliminated Muslims from the face of the Iberian Peninsula.

It is a sad indictment that the great legacy of the noble Ulama of India’s freedom struggle is today tainted by a minority of those who claim to be their “heirs” who, rather than resisting, work hand in hand with those committing injustice. What is the price they are being asked to pay? For the Ulama of 1857, they paid the ultimate price with their life. However the Ulama here today are simply being asked to reject these discriminatory and unjust policies without threat to life or limb, for most of them.

The noble Ulama who fought colonialists are not only seen as heroes by Muslims, but even their foes recognised them as such. The British Army General, Sir Mowbray Thompson, who fought against Muslims in the uprisings of 1857, wrote in his memoir:

“If to fight for one’s country, plan and mastermind wars against mighty occupying powers are (acts of) patriotism, then undoubtedly the maulvis (i.e. the Ulama) were the loyal patriots of their country and their succeeding generations will remember them as heroes.”

As for the Ulama of the CVE programmes, unless they change tact, rather than being seen as heroes, they will be remembered more like the Abū Raghāls of their time.[13]

[13]Abū Raghāl: In the year of the Prophet’s (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) birth the army of Abraha descended on Makkah. Abraha was a Christian ruler in Yemen who had built a big church, al-Qullays. He sought to destroy the Ka’ba in Makkah, making al-Qullays the centre of worship and trade for all of Arabia. To do this, he set out to destroy the Ka’ba and eliminate any opposition. In order to do this, however, he needed a guide to lead his army for the best route to Makkah. A man called Abū Raghāl from the city of Tā’if agreed to be the guide against his own people and against his co-religionists for a lowly wage. As the army of Abraha got to the gates of Makkah, Abū Raghāl died and the army of Abraha was destroyed. The Arabs of that time would often curse the grave of Abū Raghāl for being a traitor to his own people and to his own religion for mere dinars. Treachery is such a heinous crime that Abū Raghāl’s name has been immortalised on account of this lowly act.

]]>Hindu scholar from India speaks out against the Islamophobic campaign against Dr Zakir Naik

Ever since a Bangladeshi newspaper reported that Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik “inspired” Dhaka militants, a new frenzy of Islamophobic discourse has begun in India. The Modi Government was quick to grab this opportunity of Muslim-bashing.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh asserted that the Government would not “compromise on terrorism at any cost”. While I&B Minister M Venkaiah Naidu assured that an “appropriate action” would follow after studying his speeches which, nonetheless, he condemned as “highly objectionable”. Union Home Ministry, agencies and the Maharashtra Government are now probing the matter.

However, the unfortunate part of this entire episode is that without completion of the police investigation, Hindutva activists of social media along with a considerable section of journalists have already demonised Dr Naik. The same group of people has never bothered to write about how the followers of Hindutva leaders have lynched and killed people, raped women, looted their properties and displaced settlement after settlement. Are they going to advocate severe punishments for these Hindutva leaders for inspiring their followers into indulging into acts of extreme violence?

Note how the charge of The Daily Star against Dr Naik does not produce any strong evidence. ‘Another suspected killer Rohan Imtiaz, son of an Awami League leader, urged all Muslims to be terrorists in Facebook last year quoting Peace TV’s controversial preacher Zakir Naik.’

Put differently, the newspapers introduced the suspected killer Imtiaz as the son of a leader of the Awami League and a follower of Dr Naik. While Imtiaz’s connection with Dr Naik is mainly highlighted, all other factors are ignored, like the killer being part of a ruling party family or that he was also following BBC and CNN Facebook pages or that he had got himself photographed with a Bollywood actress.

It is to be noted that 49-year-old Dr Naik—who is recipient of Saudi Arabia and Muslim World’s most prestigious award ‘King Faisal International Prize’ and founder of the Peace TV channels, has more than fourteen million fans on his Facebook page. How could he be held responsible for the act of each and every follower?

Earlier, a similar charge was put against the Deoband Madrasa. The allegation was that Muslim fundamentalists are inspired by Deoband’s interpretation of Islam. However, it is conveniently forgotten that the same Deoband School fought against the British colonialism, and allied with Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress, opposing the Partition in favour of a composite nationalism (muttahida qaumiyat).

If Hindu nationalists are involved in demonising Dr Naik, one can understand this, given their politics of polarisation and hatred. But what troubles us most is how a large section of the progressive and the Left intellectuals, too, begin to be driven by the Hindutva agenda.

The writing of Javed Anand, a progressive and minority rights activist, is a typical example of this. Although Dr Naik’s “link” with “terror network” is unproven, Anand still painted his picture as though terrorism in the world flows from his very tongue. ‘If not a link in the chain, Naik remains the peddler of a heady gateway drug’, writes Anand in The Indian Express (July 7, 2016).

In his re-hashed old essay on Zakir Naik on sabrangindia.in on 5 July, Anand contributed to the Hindutva and mainstream media discourse that Dr Zakir Naik inspired the Bangladeshi militants. Anand’s fundamental mistake was to uncritically accept the version of The Daily Star. Even a journalism undergraduate is aware of the fact that before accepting any news story as a piece of truth, he/she should verify its authenticity.

The flawed mainstream discourse on terrorism is its blindness to historical and sociological insights that constitute any complex phenomenon. As subaltern historian Shahid Amin has brilliantly shown, the image of Gandhi was varied among masses during the colonial period. Similarly, any form of representation is interpreted in multiple ways.

Take the example of the work of the eminent historian Romila Thapar. Hindutva forces which otherwise hate her intellectual work the most, are fond of accepting her rejection of the Aryan-invasion theory. When attacked by the Dalits and Adivasis that they are the real inhabitants (mulnivasi) of this country and the upper castes are foreign Aryan invaders, the same Hindu right would shield them under Thapar’s works. Given that, should Professor Thapar be held responsible for inspiring the Hindutva forces?

Similarly, Marxist texts are interpreted by hundreds of Left-wing and Communist thinkers and organisations in different ways. The difference is so wide that it has led to not only different courses but occasional bloodbath among themselves. For instance, the radical Marxists dismiss the mainstream Left as “social-fascists”, while the Parliamentary Leftists attack the radicals as “Naxalites” and “Maoists”. Should Marx be held responsible for inspiring Marxists to shed their own blood?

Unlike such an Islamophobic narration, radical intellectuals have well established that modern terrorism has its links with historical, political-economic dimensions as well as modern power. Noted scholar Mahmood Mamdani has rightly pointed out that terrorism as a modern political movement is at the service of modern power.

Thus, the propagation or acceptance of views that terrorism flows from the mouth of any preacher or a Facebook post is absolutely absurd. Also absurd is the view that a particular religion breeds terrorism and is opposed to modern values.

Another grave error in such discourses is that Dr Naik’s speeches are not often quoted in their proper context. Anand, in the above-mentioned essay, also makes the same mistake by using a few scattered quotes of Dr Naik.

Thus, Anand quoted Naik as saying: ‘If you (American) eat pigs you behave [wife-swap] like pigs’, ‘Jews and pagans are the worst eternal enemies of Islam’, ‘women who get raped are asking for it’, ‘death for homosexuals’, ‘apostasy is a one-way street’, ‘man is more polygamous by nature compared to a woman’, ‘every Muslim should be a terrorist,’ and so on.

The way Anand hurriedly threw quotes, it reminded me of one of newsreaders who read out fatafat (quick) news bulletin. In this way, readers are barred from having a near-faithful understanding of the author. Social and political activists are often seen raising slogans in protest demonstrations that Mazdoor hito ka hanan huya to khoon bahega sarko par (if the interests of the workers are violated, blood will flow on the streets). If one takes a part of the quote khoon bahega sarko par (blood will flow on the streets), the same progressive slogan would appear as if it is inciting violence. Worse still, Anand nowhere gave the source of Naik’s alleged quotes.

Before I conclude, let me make a clarification that I, like millions of others—both Muslims and non-Muslims—do not follow all of the things Dr Naik preaches. For example, when a few years back, Dr Zakir Naik came to speak at New Delhi’s India Islamic Cultural Centre, the auditorium was packed with his supporters but there were also some Muslims standing outside the venue and shouting ‘Zakir Naik Go back!’

Moreover, I am aware of the fact that his interpretation of Islam is largely accepted by the Sunni Muslims of Salafi ideology, while others, such as a large section of Shia and Barelvi Muslims, vigorously oppose his views. Even many Deobandi Muslims do not approve of his assertive style of presenting Islam.

Given that the claim that Dr Naik is radicalising Muslims is untenable, one should not forget that his supporters and opponents are found in large numbers among Muslims in India and abroad. No one is stopping the critics to criticise Dr Naik but they are not justified in demonising him.

One should not forget that Dr Naik was interviewed by respected journalists such as Shekar Gupta and invited to a panel discussion by Barkha Dut. Even Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a Hindu icon and a staunch nationalist, engaged with Dr Naik in a debate.

If Dr Naik is demonised for inspiring militants, what “punishment” should be given to Gupta, Dut and Ravi Shankar for engaging with Naik?

Source: www.islam21c.com

This article was first published in the Indian newspaper Milli Gazette

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-politics-of-demonising-dr-zakir-naik/feed/1223001Sikhs: Victims & Proponents of Islamophobiahttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/sikhs-victims-proponents-of-islamophobia/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/sikhs-victims-proponents-of-islamophobia/#commentsSat, 13 Feb 2016 18:59:44 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=20607Asim Qureshi reviews the book, Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict by Dr Katy Sian “I wonder what happened to her? I think the last I heard was that she was in Pakistan…” At the centre of Dr Katy Sian’s book, Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict, lies the question of Sikh identity, and particularly, what being ...

“I wonder what happened to her? I think the last I heard was that she was in Pakistan…”

At the centre of Dr Katy Sian’s book, Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict, lies the question of Sikh identity, and particularly, what being Sikhni means in modern day Britain. Sian effectively charts how Sikhs in the UK have largely built an identity that is based on the politics, history, folklore and myths surrounding their intersection with Muslim communities dating back to their formation during the Mughal period of India.

Sian charts every day interactions within the Sikh community and found what was manifest were the Islamophobic narratives about who Muslims are, and the extent to which they pose a problem. The quote above from her prologue tells a familiar story within Sikh communities, of Sikhni girls who fall in love with Muslim boys and eventually end up being sold into a life of forced prostitution in Pakistan. The work is filled with a number of anecdotes from those she interviews, but is also interspersed with her own experiences. One example of the casual Islamophobia she encounters comes at the very beginning of her first chapter, where at a family gathering an acquaintance remarks,

“…it’s the Muslims who have caused all the problems in the world…We need to shoot all the Pakis!”

While the above sentiment may perhaps represent the strongest manifestation of anti-Muslim responses within the book, it is the consistency with which Sian presents the formation of Sikh identity as a response to Muslims that is particularly stark. Although she successfully charts how British colonial treatment of Sikhs as a martial race, and Hindu massacres against them, very much informed their trajectory of their development as a people, it is still Muslims that are chief among their concern. What is missing however, within the Sikh narrative, is the extent to which British colonialism and Hindu nationalism has impacted them both culturally and politically, and how those constructions have fed into their positioning of Sikhs within the diaspora,

“Diasporic Sikhs share with Muslims similar instances of being constructed by the West as a problematic community; for example, following the attack of 1984 the agitation of Sikhs in the quest for a separatist state created global arousal whereby Sikhs became intrinsically linked with terrorism…In the British context, the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s saw persisting campaigns concerning Sikh dress code, particularly with cases of the turban and the possession of the kirpan; such activity pioneered British multiculturalism. Given the homologies between Muslim and Sikh diasporic conditions, the question arises of why Sikhs appear so invested in distancing themselves – in primarily antagonistic terms – from Muslims in postcolonial Britain.”

The interviews conducted by Katy Sian highlight an intergenerational narrative of trauma that runs linearly from Mughal responses to the emergence of Sikhism in 1469 to the violence of partition in 1947 all the way to fears around Muslim ‘extremism’ in the UK. The largest part of that narrative revolves around forced conversions, the martyrdom of the Sikh men who resisted those conversions, and the bemoaning of the Sikh women lost to those conversions. When Gayatri Spivak wrote her seminal essay Can the Subaltern Speak? she referred to white men saving brown women from brown men. In a strange form of colonised narratives, Sikh views towards Muslims seem to reflect that view, except to contextualise it to their own environment, where Sikh men are saving Sikh women from Muslim men,

“…when a Sikh man, Mangal Singh, reflected on his experiences he talked of how he and his two brothers chose to kill or, rather, martyr the women in his family to escape conversion to Islam. ‘“We had to do this”, he told me “because otherwise they would have been converted.””

It is in a post-9/11 environment in particular, that the conflict between Sikhs and Muslims has magnified. Not only are Sikhs being attacked due to mistakes by racists in who they are attacking, but the prevailing internal narrative within Sikh communities has meant that they have come to view Muslims as being different, external, a community not capable of integrating into British society as they have.

While some of these narratives remain internal to Sikh dialogue about Muslims, there are increasing ways in which aggressions and micro-aggressions play out externally. Even in universities, literature was distributed among Sikhs warning specifically of how members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir would pretend to be Sikh, become boyfriends to Sikh girls, and forcefully convert them to Islām before selling them, in a completely fabricated scenario. Sian recounts a meeting she attended between Sikh leaders and the Metropolitan police where such issues were raised, but no actual evidence could be produced,

“In relation to the police meeting on the topic we can see the same narrative structure of the threat, or rather the fear, of the Muslim being articulated. Moreover the views expressed at the police meeting support the hegemony of such a narrative that is evidently embedded within the Sikh community. The meeting proved significant for a number of reasons. I attended the meeting to find out more about the general issues affecting the Sikh community, but on closer inspection political logics were in play throughout the whole meeting. Let me elaborate. First, the police starting the meeting with discussion of the terror threat level in the UK seemed perplexing. By starting a meeting to discuss Sikh issues with the terror level, the Sikh community representatives shaped the following discussions, which were all centered upon Sikhs against Muslims, or “friends” against the “enemies.””

Dr Katy Sian is ultimately showing, that a securitisation and also a ‘westernisation’ of the Sikh identity discourse has organically developed old colonial logics into a new threat within the discourse around British Asians. Such a discourse creates a conflict that is reductive and nearly entirely based upon myth, rather than facts. Of greatest concern is how such a discourse plays into the structural racism and hegemony of the state as it seeks to control communities and, even at times, to keep them in conflict with one another. Such a context cannot be ignored, for it sits at the heart of how we engage with one another in a neo-colonial Britain, and also how we also engage with our own conceptions of identity and dissent against a structural form of assimilation.

What Sian does not delve into is what this story means from the perspective of Muslims. In a neo-colonial world where post-colonial thinking is restricted largely to academia and activism, how can Muslims begin to understand intersectionality so that the struggles of others become their own. It may be controversial for some Muslims to hear, but when Sikhs are attacked for being Muslim, when an Ahmadi mosque is made victim of an arson attack and when Jean Charles de Menezes is shot in the back of his head, these are issues that the majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims must take on because, in actual fact, they are not only manifestations of racism, but manifestations of Islamophobia.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/sikhs-victims-proponents-of-islamophobia/feed/420607Arabic Language: Past, Present & Futurehttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/arabic-language-past-present-future/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/arabic-language-past-present-future/#commentsThu, 04 Feb 2016 17:55:28 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=20515Arabic is the main surviving language of the Semitic family. It is spoken in the Arab East and Arab West, popularly known as the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in East and West Africa. It is the fourth most popular language in the world after English, French and Spanish. Arabic is the ...

]]>Arabic is the main surviving language of the Semitic family. It is spoken in the Arab East and Arab West, popularly known as the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in East and West Africa. It is the fourth most popular language in the world after English, French and Spanish. Arabic is the official language of the members of the League of Arab States (Arab League), which embraces 23 countries from Oman on the Arabian Sea to Morocco and Mauritania on the Atlantic. It is also spoken as the first or second language in countries neighbouring the Arab World like Chad, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Cameron, North Nigeria, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Western Iran, South Turkey and even in Israel where another Semitic language, Hebrew, is the first official language while Arabic is the second. In addition to this, there are Arab communities settled in Western Europe, Americas and Southeast Asia which still use Arabic in their daily lives. There are around 450 million people speaking Arabic around the world today.

Other Semitic languages which still survive to this day are Amharic, spoken in Ethiopia, Hebrew spoken in Israel, Tigrinya, spoken in Eritrea, Maltese spoken in the Mediterranean island of Malta and Aramaic spoken by some Christian communities in Syria including the famous village of Ma’lula.

Semitic languages emerged in what is now Iraq and Eastern Syria at the end of the third millennium BCE. The first to emerge were the Akkadian and Ebla languages. Later, Ammorite and Canaanite languages emerged in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula.

During the second millennium BCE, the early Semitic alphabet emerged. This alphabet developed during the first millennium BCE when the Aramaic language held sway over the area now known as Middle and Near East. Aramaic was the language of Jesus Christ and in it he uttered his famous saying when he was arrested by Roman soldiers, Eli, Eli lima sabakhtani (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me). Aramaic remained the language of Christian rituals until the fifth century CE. Arabic language, as we know it today, evolved in the beginning of the first millennium CE and had fully developed by the time the Qur’ān was revealed in the seventh century CE.

The Arabs were proud of their language and thought that they alone are able to clearly express themselves. Hence, they called non-Arabs as “’Ajam,” literally: people who are not able to speak or express themselves properly. Arabic was a highly developed language when the Qur’ān was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). It had famous poets whose poems were written on parchments and hung on the walls of the Holy Precinct in Mecca. Hence they were called “al-Mu’allaqāt” (the Hung). The most famous are “al-Mu’allaqāt al-Sab’ah” (the Hung Seven) by poets like Imra’ul-Qais whose poetry can match the best in world history. This pre-Islamic poetry is still a benchmark of Arabic grammar and lexical semantics. Arabic grammar too was fully developed just before the revelation of the Qur’ān. The dialect spoken by the tribe of Quraish in Mecca was considered to be the purest and most developed. Other Arabs understood it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit the famous seasonal souqs (markets) of Arabia, which attracted Arab poets and orators, where he recited verses of the Qur’ān and called people to Islām. We find no indication in history books that Arabs ever complained that words uttered by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were unfathomable to them.

The Arabs describe their language as the “Language of Ḍād”. Ḍād is a peculiar sound and letter used by the Arabs alone. Arabic is unique in the usage of systematic, three-character roots (jidhr) of words which are mathematically used to coin hundreds of words, nouns and verbs. A person well-versed in Arabic will readily understand the meaning of any particular shape based on the three-character root.

After the advent of Islām, Arab conquests and Arab tribes’ migrations to conquered areas, Arabic spread to other regions including territories where other Semitic languages held sway. As a result of conquests and migrations, Arabic spread to all parts of North Africa from Egypt to Morocco and Mauritania and even to Andalus where it flourished for seven centuries. Some of the best Arabic works on literature and Islām were written in Andalus.

Non-Arabs contributed immensely to the richness of Arabic during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. They translated into Arabic important books from Greek, Persian and Sanskrit and enriched the language in many ways. Sibawaih was the greatest Arabic grammarian while Ibn Al-Muqaffa’ remains one of the best classical writers of Arabic prose and both were Persians. Indians too contributed much to Arabic. One of the important Arabic lexicons which is popular to this day is Tāju’l-‘Arus fi sharh al-Qāmus in ten volumes by the Indian scholar Sayyid Murtada ibn Muhammad al-Bilgirāmi al-Zabidi (d. 1205H/1790 CE).

Arabic is the wealthiest language in terms of lingual treasure. Ibn Manzur’s Lisan Al-‘Arab lexicon, compiled in the 14th century CE, contains over 80,000 words while Samuel Johnson’s English dictionary compiled in the 18th century contains only 42,000 words.

Arabic consists of 28 characters (or 29 if hamzah too is counted). It is written from right to left like Hebrew, while most other languages are written from left to right. Arabic calligraphy is the most developed form of writing any language. There are dozens of styles of writing Arabic characters. One of them is the Persian script which was adopted by Urdu. The great painter Picasso was so overwhelmed by the beauty and versatility of Arabic calligraphy that he is reported to have said that he would not have taken to painting had he seen Arabic calligraphy earlier.

As a result of official patronage and usage by a large part of humanity, Arabic became an accomplished tool to express and describe religious, scientific and philosophical ideas. Arabic, which was merely a language of poetry and oratory of pre-Islām Arab tribes, developed into a language of arts, science, medicine and philosophy within two centuries after the advent of Islām. Arabs started writing books within a century of the advent of Islām. Since the second century of Islām, hundreds of thousands of books were written in Arabic on all possible subjects and topics. Many of these books are still preserved and used by scholars.

Being Islām’s official language benefited Arabic greatly. Many Islamic rituals cannot be performed without reading Qur’anic verses and supplications in Arabic. Thus every Muslim in the world knows a bit of Arabic. Over the centuries some eastern churches, like the Coptic Church, adopted Arabic as their official religious language. Jews of the Arab world too adopted Arabic. Their scholars like Musa ibn Maimun (Maimonides) wrote their Jewish masterpieces in Arabic. Ibn Maimun, who lived in Andalus, was such a great scholar of Judaism that Jews used to say, “From Moses to Moses there is no one like Moses”.

Arabic spread all over the old world from Venice in Italy to Canton in China as the language of science, medicine and commerce. This continued until the beginning of the colonial onslaught in the 16th century CE which broke the Arab control over maritime trade by attacking Arab commercial ships and looting them in open seas.

During that long period numerous languages across the world were influenced by Arabic. Countless Arabic words were borrowed by foreign languages like English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Sicilian and Albanian. Some languages like Persian, Urdu, Pashto, Kashmiri, Tajik, Turkish, Kurdish, Hebrew, Somali, Swahili, Tigrini, Tigri, Oromian, Fulani, Hausa, Maltese, Bhasa Malayu, Divehi and others, borrowed more than 30 percent of their vocabularies from Arabic. Many also adopted the Arabic script. Even Sanskrit, Tamil and Malayali were written in the Arabic script at some point in their history. Some of them still use the Arabic script like Persian, Urdu, Kashmiri, Pasthto, Sindhi, Tajik, Eastern Turkistani, Kurdish and Bhasa Malayu as used in Brunei, Acheh and Java. Some of them introduced little innovations to include local sounds like چ ,گ , ڑ , ڈ ، ٹ , and so on, in Urdu.

Due to the vastness of the regions which adopted Arabic, local dialects of Arabic also emerged. Today, there are distinct Egyptian, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Sudanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Najdi, Hijazi, Yemeni and Khaliji dialects but the written Arabic is the same.

Arabic received a setback as result of the Crusades, Tatar/Mongol invasions, Turkisation (Tatrik) during the later period of the Ottoman State and the advent of the western colonialism which brought its own languages. These forces tried hard to destroy Arabic and succeeded in their endeavours to an extent. The advent of modern printing and spread of modern education in Arab countries stemmed this process as Arabic books became easily available everywhere. Soon magazines and newspapers too appeared in Arabic since the seventeenth century. Today, Arabic stands among the major languages of the world. It is being used effortlessly to describe and express all forms of human experiences and knowledge. Flexibility of Arabic is such that new words are being coined on a daily basis to keep up with the human progress in all fields. The three-character root formula comes very handy to help coin new words and terms which are easily understood by an Arabic reader.

Due to the importance of Arabic in the contemporary world, the UN General Assembly decided on 18 December, 1973 to adopt it as an official language of the UN in addition to English, French, Chinese, Spanish and Russian languages. In 2010, the UNESCO decided to celebrate this day, 18 December, as the Day of Arabic with a view to encourage its appreciation and use worldwide. “18 December” is the same day when UN General Assembly had adopted Arabic as an official language of the world body. Ever since, this day is celebrated worldwide in the form of cultural activities, literary and music evenings, exhibitions, contests, conferences, food festivals, theatre and film shows, and so on.

I feel that the Arabs today suffer from a sense of self-sufficiency as far as Arabic is considered. They have no enthusiasm to spread their language beyond their borders and do not encourage or recognise non-Arabs who contribute to Arabic. Here in India, we see many countries open cultural centres to propagate their cultures and languages, like UK, France, Germany and even Iran, which makes great efforts to teach Persian to the Indians. Not long ago, we saw the German ambassador trying undiplomatically to influence the Indian government to teach German in Indian schools. No such plan or effort is seen from any of the 23 Arab countries or even the Arab League which all maintain missions in Delhi. We did not hear even a whisper from the Arab ambassadors when in 2013 the Indian government deleted Arabic and Persian from the list of languages approved for the civil service examinations.

A number of important languages including Arabic have suffered as a result of the fast technological advancement after the emergence of the Internet and allied services which mostly use English. Yet, we should concede that the Arab people and governments have taken great pain to ensure the presence of Arabic on the Internet. Today the Internet contains huge treasures of Arabic poetry, literature, history, dictionaries and basic sources of Islām. Likewise, all Internet applications are available to the Arabic-users.

Despite the current challenges, I see a great future for the Arabic language. Here in India too we should pay due attention to modern Arabic in order to connect with the rich Arab World and benefit from the huge opportunities it offers our people in terms of employment, exports and joint ventures.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/arabic-language-past-present-future/feed/620515A lesson from the Musalmans of Colonial Indiahttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-lesson-from-the-musalmans-of-colonial-india/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-lesson-from-the-musalmans-of-colonial-india/#commentsTue, 13 Oct 2015 08:09:05 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=19424Dispelling myths of Muslim integration Part 2: A lesson in integration from the Musalmans of Colonial India Click here for part 1 In 1871, in post Mutiny colonial India, Sir William Wilson Hunter published a report explaining the “danger to British power” of the “persistently belligerent class”: the Muslims. “The Musalmans of India are, and ...

In 1871, in post Mutiny colonial India, Sir William Wilson Hunter published a report explaining the “danger to British power” of the “persistently belligerent class”: the Muslims.

“The Musalmans of India are, and have been for many years, a source of chronic danger to the British Power in India. For some reason or other they hold aloof from our system, and the changes in which the more flexible Hindus have cheerfully acquiesced, are regarded by them as deep personal wrongs.”[1]

That “some reason or other” that even the very astute Sir William could not understand is that we already have a defined system, a Sharī’a and a Minhāj (methodology). While all religions have some form of “way” the clarity and all-encompassing guidance in Islām is of an entirely different level which rarely seems to be fully appreciated by non-Muslims. Not only has our way been described in great detail but the guidance, from The Creator who knows us better than we know ourselves, includes safety nets to stop us falling from the way. Some of these aspects of our guidance seem to irritate non-Muslims the most, when we avoid things that are not even sins in case they lead to sin.

While they can dictate most things in daily life to others just as long as they leave their religion alone, our religion and daily life are inseparable. Unfortunately to those in power today our stubbornness and tenacity in sticking to our way looks again, relative to the carefree acquiescence of others, like aggressive rebellion.

Sir William gave some advice on how to control the rebellious Muslims of his day:

“The British Government of India is strong enough to be spared the fear of being thought weak. It can shut up the traitors in its jails, but it can segregate the whole party of sedition in a nobler way — by detaching from it the sympathies of the general Muhammadan community.”

It could well be that the bogus call for us to further integrate is part of a tactic to divide the overtly practicing Muslims, and with it the full practice of Islām itself, from the Muslims who do not outwardly display their religion. They might shave their beards, abandon their hijab, mix freely, shake hands with the opposite sex and probably feel as though they are not the ones accused of not integrating. Some Muslims in that—inshā’Allāh—transitory period of their life fall for it and unfairly blame our uncompromising Scholars for the hostility we face, when all they are doing is reminding people of what it says in the same Qur’ān on every Muslim’s bookshelf. Would they blame Allāh for what he revealed to us?

If they understood that that was what they were doing, they would prove an even more common mistake by some non-Muslims; to view someone’s lack of outward adherence to the Dīn as a sign that they are nearly ready to abandon their religion. Really it is a much more complicated equation than that.

On my journey to Islām one guiding voice I cannot forget was a very drunk man who cornered me in a bar in Tangier to give me the most passionate and effective daw’ah I would have had.

He might have been in some ways astray from the path but it seemed in his heart his love for Islām only grew as the love for a long distant wife might grow in someone fighting to get back to her. Mistaken by the same presumption, under most of the recent despotic regimes in the Muslim world, the leaders have also oppressed outward signs of the religion as though if they were out of sight it would vanish from the hearts of the believers. In nearly all cases nothing should be assumed of outward appearance other than old habits and bad habits. Those Muslims who do not display or practise the outward symbols of their identity should not be automatically counted to side with the “reformist” sycophants who are paid handsomely to help some hostile non-Muslims outlaw normal Islamic practice to force our assimilation.

Now, just as it was for Sir William then, it is understood by those in power that while a Muslim desires to freely practice his religion, he does not feel compelled to rebel against a non-Muslim ruler. But that still seems like too much of a concession to our uppityness:

“Musalmans, therefore, are bound by their own law to live peaceably under our Rule. But the obligation continues only so long as we perform our share of the contract, and respect their rights and spiritual privileges. Once let us interfere with their civil and religious status, so as to prevent the fulfilment of the ordinances of their Faith, and their duty to us ceases.”

It is not an unreasonable position and is ultimately true for all people; if you oppress anyone enough they will rebel. But for it to be openly declared in advance is taken as a threat and statement of disobedience. “We may enforce submission, but we can no longer claim obedience” realised Sir William. The fear in 1871 was that

“Even minor grievances attain in their case the gravity of political blunders, — blunders of which the cumulative effect, according to the law of Islam, would be to entirely change the relation of the Musalmans to the ruling power, to free them from their duty as subjects, and bind them over to treason and Holy War.”

All those who rule Muslims know they have this hanging over their heads and they know any step we take toward assimilation to another way is a step we take away from our religion and the threatening duties contained therein. The part that is hard for Muslims to understand is why successive rulers think it would be easier to persuade us to abandon our religion than to let us adhere to it in peace when the religion itself contains an instruction to be good citizens and obey their laws even if we do not like them. As Sir William realised “an honest Government may more safely trust to a cold acquiescence, firmly grounded upon a sense of religious duty, than to a louder-mouthed loyalty springing only from the unstable promptings of self-interest.” Does it imply they do not believe they can be honest and reasonable with us?

It is interesting to read the complaints made by the Muslims of 19th century India and Sir William points out that the British Indian Government must be sure to appeal to the general Muslim community or risk them going from their current “sullen discontent to active disaffection”:

“This, however, it can do only by removing that chronic sense of wrong which has grown up in the hearts of the Musalmans under British Rule. For there is no use shutting our ears to the fact that the Bengal Muhammadans arraign us on a list of charges as serious as was ever brought against a Government. They accuse us of having closed every honourable walk of life to professors of their creed. They accuse us of having introduced a system of education which leaves their whole community unprovided for, and which has landed it in contempt and beggary. They accuse us of having brought misery into thousands of families, by abolishing their Law Officers, who gave the sanction of religion to the marriage tie, and who from time immemorial have been the depositaries and administrators of the Domestic Law of Islam. They accuse us of imperilling their souls, by denying them the means of performing the duties of their faith. Above all, they charge us with deliberate malversation of their religious foundations, and with misappropriation on the largest scale of their educational funds.”

It is remarkable that everything on that list is still happening or threatening to happen to Muslims in Britain today. Sharia Councils dealing exclusively with family law are under threat. Planning permissions for our education institutions are being denied, those already operating are bearing the brunt of a now ideological and politicised Ofsted. Halāl slaughter is continually under attack and threat of sanction. Muslims are being economically marginalised thanks to the manufactured climate of fear. Mosques and Islamic charities are being threatened with closure. The list goes on.

It is as though those in power still do not realise that 99% of Muslims love their religion. They patronisingly seem to think that if they can just silence our scholars and activists all the “general Muslims” would follow the government paid reformists and not notice their unsubtle efforts to dismantle every aspect of Muslim identity in the UK. The reality is the 99% see there are people talking for us so we do not have to. Take them away and certainly more will take their place; look to history for proof of this. They would do better to remember the Edmund Burke saying that Mr Cameron quoted, “To make men love their country, their country ought to be lovable.”

Now in the UK we are entering what looks to any observant Muslim like a rekindling of the 800 year long Catholic Inquisition. Primary school children are being reported to the Anti-Terrorism police for asking for a prayer room and reminding each other to maintain their hijab, (Parkfield Community School, reported Radio 4 Today Program 12/10/15 7:30am) both things are compulsory and basic requirements of the religion. How can this be viewed as other than the blunt outlawing of Islām? Rather than encouraging integration this will create a justified fear of mixing with non-Muslims many of whom are now, it seems, legally obligated to report signs of normal Islamic practice.

With the increased Muslim population in Europe and with many more literally on the horizon, thanks to the destabilised world they have had more than a hand in, it is time that those in the ruling classes came to better understand something. Islām—although parts of it can be inflexible—really is not the problem they assume it to be. Trying to oppress or force to assimilate the Muslims who are here to stay is totally unnecessary and unwise.

For the Muslims, not least of the reminders we have that should stop us expecting that giving up a little of our religion or identity would bring an end to our persecution:

“And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.” If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper.”[2]

If we acquiesce and seek to appease others, they would be back for more, and more, until they can find nothing left of our religion to take. Not surprisingly Allah (subhānahū wa ta’ālā) has promised that if you willingly leave His guidance after the favour He has done for you, you are on your own.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-lesson-from-the-musalmans-of-colonial-india/feed/519424Popular lies about Muslim integrationhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/popular-lies-about-muslim-integration/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/popular-lies-about-muslim-integration/#commentsMon, 05 Oct 2015 09:00:35 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=19330Dispelling myths of Muslim integration Part 1: Popular lies about Muslim integration Click here for part 2 The call for Muslims to integrate is getting ever louder. After the sky being blue the next most commonly accepted fact these days is that Muslims are not integrated. Interestingly no less an authority than the Social Integration Commission ...

Dispelling myths of Muslim integration

The call for Muslims to integrate is getting ever louder. After the sky being blue the next most commonly accepted fact these days is that Muslims are not integrated. Interestingly no less an authority than the Social Integration Commission found that the evidence points instead to Blacks and Asians being better integrated in Britain than Whites: “The level of social integration between social grades remains broadly the same across all ethnic groups” while Whites were found to be the least ethnically integrated being 7% and 10% more likely to keep themselves to themselves than Asians and Blacks respectively. [1] Muslims specifically are 27% more likely to strongly identify with Britain than the general population, more likely to be proud to be British and have a greater sense of belonging.[2] Overall it was found that “Indians, Black Africans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Middle Eastern Muslims associate most closely with Britishness.”[3]

Having failed to prove that we are not integrated in any meaningful way, the only thing left for the propagandists at even the highest levels was to repeat the lie enough times until people believed it. In David Cameron’s recent Birmingham speech he mentioned integration 10 times, segregation 10 times and multiple use of words like allegiance, belonging and isolation.[4] According to Barak Obama the Muslims’ failure to integrate is literally “the greatest danger that Europe faces.”[5] A greater danger than cancer, car crashes, saturated fats and Godzilla.

An effective way to spread disinformation is to attach a lie to something that is at least partly true. They claim the proof of our lack of integration is that we are not in the “Social mix” with non-Muslims and then add “and this is why Muslims are a problem.” It is an easy and effective attack. Most non-Muslims can prove the doctrine for themselves by seeing that they do not have any Muslim friends or colleagues. As Brits apparently believe that one in every five of them is a Muslim (an impressive 21% according to Ipsos Mori research[6]), it is understandable why they would think it strange that they do not know any. As the real figure is less than 5% it could just be that there are not enough of us to go around, rather than proof of any sinister problem.

In socially engineered new towns like Milton Keynes they tried to integrate people of different socioeconomic status, “social mixing to deconcentrate poverty.”[7] They built cul-de-sacs with smaller cul-de-sacs branching off the main one. The houses were cheaper in the first branches getting more expensive as the roads went on. The result: The BMWs just drive past to their end of the road and the birds of different feathers still do not flock together. It did achieve the goal of dividing people into smaller groups and avoided a repeat of the large estates they moved out of from London, but in the process it disproved the idealist’s fantasy: if you force everyone together it does not mean they will all mix and equally participate; it just isolates people from others like them and reduces the likelihood of communities occurring.

There has been a documented decline in community over recent decades. One highly cited report found that,

“The country has become steadily more socially fragmented since 1971. The data and analysis presented here suggests that the social glue and cohesion has been weakening and that Britain has been steadily moving towards a slightly more atomised society with each decade that passes.”[8]

No fingers are pointed at Muslims as only 0.46% of the population were Muslim when this trend started in 1971. In fact the report says,

“Although Britain has been dividing and segregating in every way measured by the data presented in this report, it should be noted that there were some areas where the divisions narrowed. For instance, Britain is less segregated by race and ethnicity than it was in 1991”

The increase of Muslims to Britain’s multicultural mix has coincided with a decrease in racial and ethnic segregation.

Very often when Brits look for a cause for our community disintegration, rather than asking ourselves why we have no interest in knowing our neighbours or being involved in local issues, many of us bizarrely turn on immigrants and these days particularly Muslims and Islām. Not only is there no evidence to support their accusations but it should be Muslims who are the least likely to suffer from community disintegration. There are many reminders in Islām to maintain the ties of kinship, to honour neighbours—whatever their religion—as though they were family, and up to 5 daily visits to mix socially at the mosque for communal prayers where people are reminded we are all equal before the Creator regardless of our socioeconomic status. It seems rather than being the cause of community disintegration, Islām has the cure.

In 2007 after staying briefly with a Muslim family in Birmingham, an apparently unfamiliar David Cameron wrote,

“Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear – values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”[9]

After just one night in a Muslim house he had seen the light. It is a pity that his vision has become clouded since gaining power. It is clear from the way he uses the word “integrate” there that to Mr Cameron it is interchangeable with “assimilate” or “adopt” and that is why he finds it all so confusing. On the one hand all the evidence shows that we are well integrated while on the other hand we are still very Muslim, so clearly have not adopted his ways yet.

Many minds have already been made up about Islām before having Mr Cameron’s sadly forgotten family exchange opportunity. Many non-Muslims no matter what mess their personal and spiritual life might be in just assume that their ways are superior and only a belligerent people would refuse to adopt them. Being different is to many now an implicit insult. Suggesting that to be fair they should first look at what Islām has to offer is like asking a child to try a new type of food which they reject before tasting. The parent reasonably asks the child “How do you know until you’ve tried it?”, and the childish reply: “I just don’t like the look of it!”

But it is worse than distaste; it is getting towards terror and panic. One comment to a routine, hysteria-inducing article in the Spectator is a good example of the state of paranoia some are in:

“The question needs to be asked as to what exactly will satisfy Muslims in terms of them not wanting to change/destroy the society they have moved to. As far as I can see nothing short of our total capitulation to their will is going to suffice.”[10]

Anyone reading that might assume we have the non-Muslims outnumbered, outgunned and surrounded, not that we are 5% of the population and mostly socioeconomically disadvantaged with no access to the wheels of power and no media voice. What is he seeing to decide Muslims are asking for nothing less than total capitulation to his will? The Muslim community is not trying to force our ways onto non-Muslims. One of my favourite questions to Islamophobic non-Muslims is “In what way has Islām effected your daily life in the UK?” and I have yet to get more than a blank stare in return. This paranoia cannot be something natural when so many people are getting it while having no idea where it came from. The truth is they are being told that our refusal to give up our way is something to be feared and not for the first time.

However, history does show us that there are those in the ruling elite classes who deem Islām to be a genuine threat. In 1871, in post Mutiny colonial India, Sir William Wilson Hunter published a report explaining the “danger to British power” of the “persistently belligerent class”: the Muslims.

“The Musalmans of India are, and have been for many years, a source of chronic danger to the British Power in India. For some reason or other they hold aloof from our system, and the changes in which the more flexible Hindus have cheerfully acquiesced, are regarded by them as deep personal wrongs.”[11]

In the next article in this series inshā’Allāh, we will look to history for crucial insights into the ideology of assimilation today.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/popular-lies-about-muslim-integration/feed/1119330The truth about Sultan Aurangzebhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-truth-about-sultan-aurangzeb/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-truth-about-sultan-aurangzeb/#commentsMon, 17 Nov 2014 10:43:30 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=14520The Emperor Aurangzeb, who rose to the throne in the 17th Century as the sixth Mughal ruler over “India”, is often painted as a vicious, religiously intolerant, minority-suppressing fanatic, whose only job was to demolish temples in favour of mosques, antagonise his father and brothers, and single-handedly bring down the once magniﬁcent Mughal Empire. And ...

]]>The Emperor Aurangzeb, who rose to the throne in the 17th Century as the sixth Mughal ruler over “India”, is often painted as a vicious, religiously intolerant, minority-suppressing fanatic, whose only job was to demolish temples in favour of mosques, antagonise his father and brothers, and single-handedly bring down the once magniﬁcent Mughal Empire. And yet, the reality of the situation is that this could not be further from the truth. Aurangzeb would often say about himself, “This weak old man, this shrunken helpless creature, is afﬂicted with a hundred maladies besides anxiety, but he has made patience his habit”. Once, when one of Aurangzeb’s servants stumbled against him and knocked him down accidentally, the servant collapsed in fright for fear of retribution. The Mughal emperor spoke to him kindly, however, saying “Why do you fear a created being, one like myself? […] Rise and do not be afraid.”

Even the Italian historian Manucci who was present during Aurangzeb’s rule, despite loathing him and preferring his far less religious brother Dara Shikoh (many question whether he was a Muslim at all due to the fact that he tried to create a hybrid religion between Hinduism and Islam), said that Aurangzeb

“…assumes always great humility of attitude”. Even when one of his ofﬁcers disobeys him, he betrays no anger. All he says is, (and that in the softest voice) that he is only a miserable sinner, that there is no reason for astonishment if his orders are disregarded, since every day those of God Himself are neglected and repudiated. He does not forget, however, to repeat his orders and adopt every exact means of getting them executed.”

In one of his letters, Aurangzeb said,

We must put up with every class of people, what is to be done with them? They are also people

and

Do you know who a brave man is? A brave man is he who puts up with his enemies.

Writing to his father, Shah Jahan of the famous Taj Mahal (incidentally the name “Taj Mahal” is a corruption of the “Mumtaz Mahal” – the name of Shah Jahan’s beloved wife, and for whom the tomb was built for) Aurangzeb insightfully said,

I wish you to recollect that the greatest conquerors are not always the greatest Kings. The nations of the earth have often been subjugated by mere uncivilised barbarians, and the most extensive conquests have, in a few short years, crumbled to pieces. He is the truly great King who makes it the chief business of his life to govern his subjects with equity.

To his son, Prince Azam, Aurangzeb wrote,

I have heard that in your heart Jagir districts oppression is practiced openly […] Fear the sighs of the oppressed.

Modern historians love to paint Aurangzeb as a villain. And yet, even they admit their double standards towards him. Abraham Early writes,

Later historians saw Aurangzeb in an altogether different light. As the passage of time faded the memory of his innumerable small acts of everyday kindness, but magniﬁed his few notable misdeeds, such as his religious intolerance, his ruthlessness as a conqueror, his use of tactics to get the better of others, and more than anything else, his harsh treatment of his father, brothers and sons. But his predecessors too were guilty of similar acts – Jahangir and Shah Jahan had rebelled against their fathers; Jahangir had imprisoned and blinded and even thought of executing one of his sons; Shah Jahan was guilty of liquidating his brothers and nephews, and had also swerved from Akbar’s liberal religious policy; as aggressors, none of them, not even Akbar was much different from Aurangzeb.

Of course the religious intolerance being pointed to here is in comparison to Akbar’s “religious tolerance” – the latter’s included the banning of facial hair for Muslims, declaring it unlawful to believe in Angels, banning the slaughter of cows for Muslims, persecution of scholars and so on. Aurangzeb merely enabled Muslims to practice their religion freely. Any persecution of minorities that did take place was not general, but speciﬁc, nor was it religious in nature, but rather political in aim. There are many claims of Aurangzeb “oppressing the Sikhs and their Gurus” when history shows us that there were some Sikh communities who rebelled against Aurangzeb and so, as a ruler, he dealt with them as a ruler deals with his people, not as a Muslim seeking to oppress non-Muslims. Even the Wikipedia page on Aurangzeb states the well-known fact that just as he demolished some (maximum 80 in a country 20 times the size of the UK) temples, which served as political centres for rebellion, he also ﬁnanced the building of many temples and Gurdwaras which posed no threat to the Mughal rule.

And as for the harsh treatment of his father, brothers and sons – Shah Jahan wanted Aurangzeb’s elder brother, Dara Shikoh to be the next emperor even though Dara Shikoh was a terrible leader and someone who very much wanted to reinstate Akbar’s persecutory laws towards Muslims. Aurangzeb’s other brothers were less exciting – they simply wanted to be emperors. Aurangzeb was the only one who realised that power was a responsibility not an opportunity to exercise one’s desires, and so he was forced to battle his brothers and imprison his father who only wanted power for the sake of power, in a palace, with each and every one of his needs being seen to.

Aurangzeb, unlike many of his predecessors, viewed being a ruler as a sacred duty rather than something to enjoy. He therefore spent every waking moment striving to discharge his responsibilities, lest he be held culpable on the Day of Judgement for not having done so. Once, one of his well-intentioned advisers suggested that Aurangzeb should lighten his workload, but the Emperor would hear none of it.

He (the adviser) seems not to consider that, being born the son of a King, and placed on a throne, I was sent into the world by Providence to live and labour, not for myself, but for others; that it is my duty not to think of my own happiness except so far as it is inseparably connected with the happiness of my people. It is the repose and prosperity of my subjects that it behoves me to consult; nor are these to be sacriﬁced to anything besides the demands of justice, the maintenance of royal authority, and the security of the State.

This desire to serve God, something which was equally as manifest in his great, great, great grandfather Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, was apparent to all those around Him. The British Ambassador Norris reports that he used to see Aurangzeb, even during battle,

surrounded by greate numbers of Horse & vast numbers of people crowding to see Him […] he himselfe tho’ carryd openly saw nobody, having his eyes always afﬁxed upon a Booke he carryd in his hands & reading all ye way he went without ever divertinge to any other object.

This book was the Qur’ān. Aurangzeb had memorised it completely. And he would constantly recite it. Abdul Aziz, the chief of the Uzbegs who had rebelled against Aurangzeb, famously noted that even during their famous battle, Aurangzeb would calmly spread his prayer mat on the ﬁeld, kneeling down to say the evening prayers in the midst of the furore that was taking place around him. “To ﬁght with such a man,” he said, “is to court one’s own destruction.” In fact, the Qur’ān was his sole means of ﬁnance. Though he presided over the richest empire in the world at the time (Shah Jahan’s famous peacock throne made from pure gold is in today’s terms worth more than $804 million), he refused to take any money from the treasury. Instead, he would earn his living by producing handwritten copies of the Qur’ān, using the beautiful calligraphy he had mastered as a child.

“His vest did not cost above 8 Rupees, and his outer garments, less. Whatever Aurangzeb needed for his own use he always paid for, never accepting presents from others,” continued Norris.

Even the shroud he was buried in was bought using this same source of revenue. Towards the end of his life, having taken the Mughal Empire to the peak of its existence (henceforth it would plummet into its abolition in 1857) the Alamgir (“Conqueror of the World” – a title he adopted in ascending to the throne) would often recite:

In a twinkle, in a minute, in a breath,

The condition of the world changes.

In a ﬁnal letter to his sons, he said,

I brought nothing with me into this world and am carrying with me the fruits of my sins. I know not what punishment will fall on me […] Whatever the wind may be, I am launching my boat on the water.

And to his Vizier, Asad Khan, he wrote,

Praise be to God, that in whatever place and abode I have been, I have been passing through it, withdrawn my heart from all things connected with it, and made death easy for myself.

Aurangzeb, may God be pleased with him, passed away during the dawn prayers. Even as he lost consciousness, says Mustaid Khan,

the force of habit prevailed, and the ﬁngers of the dying King continued mechanically to tell the beads of the Tasbih they held.

And what was his funeral like? In accordance with his will: “Three hundred and ﬁve rupees, from the wages of copying the Qur’ān, are in my purse for personal expenses. Distribute them to the poor and needy on the day of my death […] do not spend it on my shroud and other necessitates.” He stated elsewhere that this was “in case I had made a mistake in copying the Qur’ān, as I will be answerable to that” “Bury this wanderer […] with his head bare, because every ruined sinner who is conducted bare headed before the Grand Emperor (God), is sure to be an object of mercy […]”

May God have mercy on you, Sultan Aurangzeb! He used you as a means of preserving His faith and His justice in the subcontinent, and as a result, I was able to be born into His faith. You are an example for all leaders to come, an inspiration for all those who believe in Him and a reminder for us all of the responsibilities we must discharge as believers in Him. May God forgive you and gift you with the companionship of your beloved Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) in the hereafter.

Originally, the grave of Sultan Aurangzeb only consisted of a wooden slab with an inscription in Farsi which said, “No marble sheets should shield me from the sky as I lie there one with the earth.” But it was later embellished and renovated with marble by the Nizam of Hyderabad.